My revised $1M offer to Paul Offit

OK, let's debate the French COVID safety study. It's published in JAMA so that meets your criteria. If you can convince the judges the paper conclusions are legit, you win the $1M.

Executive summary

Paul Offit wrote in his Substack that he turned down my COVID vaccine safety debate offer because he will only debate science published in peer-reviewed journals.

He wrote:

“Serious vaccine safety problems will be published if the data are rigorously collected, analyzed, controlled for confounding variables, subjected to peer review, and reproduced by other investigators. And they won’t be published if the data are weak.”

OK, no problem. I’m happy to modify my offer to comply with his requirements.

Let’s debate this heavily promoted paper which is published in JAMA, a top peer-reviewed journal: “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality Among Adults Aged 18 to 59 Years in France.”

The paper asserts:

I think the more accurate assessment is that the study was too confounded to make any reliable assessments as to the impact of the COVID vaccines on non-COVID ACM. So it actually doesn’t further support the safety of the mRNA vaccines. It adds nothing more than further confirmation that they can’t accurately adjust for mortality in retrospective observational studies using a propensity‑weighted cohort method (and 1:1 matching wouldn’t have worked either).

Here’s the AlterAI analysis:

This is a debate over interpretation of published science, not a claim of fraud or malfeasance.

My challenge is educational — the goal is public clarity, not humiliation or personal attack.

If Dr. Offit can convince 3 mutually agreeable impartial judges that the study more likely supports the authors’ claims vs. the AlterAI interpretation above, he wins the $1M.

Dr. Offit, do you accept?

AI predicts you will refuse.